Talk:Mikael Ljungman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 30 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Conviction

Whether his conviction is under appeal or not, it is an undisputed and widely reported (at least within the Swedish press where his conviction occured) fact that Mikael Ljungman has been convicted of tax fraud. Given the resume like claims favored certain editors of this article, and the history of false pasts being created in press releases and even SEC filings by other Gizmondo executives in the first incarnation of the company, I think it is important not to let Wikipedia be abused to provide a squeaky clean profile for this man. So unless the appeal gets to court and is successful, it is important that it stays here to provide some balance to an otherwise self-promotional article. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious that certain editor Fugu Alienking, deliberately choose words, word settings and the way to structure his work is to color the article in a negative way. Even if conviction is mentioned in that sense in a published article it will not effect the legal meaning of the word. The correct wording in legal terms should be accused and indicted for.. Wikipedia is abused by Fugu Alienking and even in this talk he sets "false pasts being created in the press releases and even SEC fillings" in a Wiki article and a last attempt to "black wash" Ljungman though that obviously not aims at Ljungman. -- Needlepinch (talk), 12:23 (EST) 31 May 2008

Concerning the conviction: Ljungman is not appealing an indictment or an accusation. He's appealing a judgment handed down by a judge in court - a conviction. I also made some other edits and partial reversals:
I shortened the patent paragraph while keeping the relevant content. It was a direct quote from the patent's abstract, including that abstract's strange grammar. The aim was to make the same content both clearer and shorter.
I removed the Media Power section; neither the section nor its sources mentioned Ljungman. Media Power is beyond the scope of this article. Is Ljungman involved with any of Media Power's operations beside the Gizmondo relaunch? Unless we have a source on that, I see no need to discuss the company in any detail.
I rewrote the sentence "Carl Freer and Mikael Ljungman was cleared from any Media suspicions regarding their work for Gizmondo Europe Ltd.", omitting Carl Freer. Firstly, this article isn't about Carl Freer, and whether Carl Freer was cleared from suspicions or not should be discussed in his own article. Secondly, one of the sources given didn't mention Ljungman at all, and it didn't mention Freer's "clearance from media suspicion", either. Thirdly, the other source mentions that the liquidators' representative had questions to Ljungman and was satisfied by the results, but doesn't mention Freer in this context. Finally, we don't even report the media suspicions in the first place.
I removed the background information on Gizmondo and Tiger Telematics. Neither was at that point directly related to Ljungman; the source doesn't mention him. Again, the information is beyond the scope of this article.
I renamed the "early life" section; it dealt with his life from university graduation to present, not quite "early". Huon (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that Needlepinch has reverted your valuable contributions to this article. I have removed all the non-relevant text again. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found another article which deals with the indictment before the case came to trial in great depth. I have added it as a reference, as it gives far more details about the charges than the brief post-trial notes in the existing references. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The article gives reference to extensively cover the indictment before the case came to trial, so it should stay. Needlepinch (talk), 9:59 AM 2 June 2008 (EST)
The referred 3P preform article need to be read in two sections accordingly. It seems that we once again stick fighting about the essence of articles. If the article is read properly it says that the receiver of the Invoices sent by 3P preform rendered a VAT input that could be deduct-able. Needlepinch (talk), 12:51 (EST) 3 June 2008

[edit] Media Power Inc.

The contents of this section, specifically the listing of four divisions of the company, did not match with what is on the company website. The references only mentioned one of those divisions so I thought it safest to remove this until a better version can be produced, if the consensus is that it is relevant to the bio to go into details about this company's activities. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit to only reading the first reference properly before removing the section, it appears the section was lifted verbatim from the second reference. I suggest rewording it to not fall foul of any copyright laws, removing the first reference which doesn't contain anything that isn't covered by the second, and explaining on this talk page why a press release should be accepted as a Reliable source over and above the company's own website, so that others noticing the discrepancy don't jump to the same conclusion I have. I still think its inclusion in the bio, especially as a separate section, is overly promotional for an encyclopedic article, but if sufficient explanation is given here, I will not remove it again. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see it was reverted without attention to my comments above. I have removed the superfluous reference, as it just repeats part of the press release that the other reference reproduces in full. I would still like to see my concerns addressed on this talk page about the reliability of the information in the press release where it contradicts information on the company's own website. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It was a repetition to the prerelease so it stays in the Fugu Alienking edited form. Neddelepinch (talk) 9:54, 2 June 2008 (EST)

[edit] Carl Freer

Carl Freer has his own article, which is the appropriate place for information about him. There is no need to put blanket statements about him being cleared from wrongdoing that is otherwise not mentioned in this article. The statement that the liquidator accepted Mikael Ljungman's explanations about the transactions between his company and Gizmondo clears Freer from any perceived wrongdoing regarding the transactions listed in this article already. -- Fugu Alienking (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fugu Alienking. The article doesn't mention any accusations against Carl Freer, whether by the liquidators or by the media. The "source" Needlepinch adds time and again is a press release by the liquidators. It does not mention any suspicions whatsoever, and it also does not mention that Carl Freer is cleared of them. But more to the point, it also does not mention Ljungman at all. This material would only be relevant to Ljungman if we had sources actually naming the media suspicions against Freer and explicitly linking Ljungman to suspicions against Freer. Huon (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The changed reference mentions: except for Carl Freer, who is now, due to his assistance and conduct, being excluded from the investigation.” ”Carl Freer has cooperated fully, and we do wish him every success in his new venture. His contribution to the investigation has not only saved us a considerable amount of time and cost, but added a great deal of financial value to the investigation. He did not go to the media and because of that, he got a lot of criticism, which was underserved. We regret that now, but he did keep his word and came through. Hence we took the unprecedented step of selling him back the assets, which happened in the end of 2007.” --It doesn't mentioned Ljungman in particular but it has bearing on the article about him, especially in the paragraph describing the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe Ltd. It also gives the same extended coverage Fugu Alienking uses to cover this angle and any other angle. Please also read Fugu Alienking earlier contribution regarding the transactions between the Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe Ltd, especially his use of wordings. Carl Freer is also Ljungmans partner and its a startup to the relaunch of Gizmondo. Needlepinch (talk) 10:17 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)
I agree that the new reference says many nice things about Carl Freer. But Freer has his own article, and that's where stuff on him belongs. This article is about Ljungman, and unless there's a conenction between Ljungman and Freer's deals with the liquidators (a connection not currently mentioned in the article or in the sources), Freer's deals should not be part of the Ljungman article. Ljungman's partnership with Freer concerning the relaunch is mentioned, the transactions between Ljungman's now bankrupt company and Gizmondo Europe are mentioned (in more detail than is called for, imho), and that seems to me to be all of Ljungman's involvement in the Gizmondo Europe bankruptcy. Or did I miss something? Huon (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no connection between Ljungman and Gizmondo Europe Ltd bankruptcy. I think this thread has grown from the wording where the reader can be set in thought there was a wrongdoing in the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe. In that sentence both Ljungman and Freer is mentioned in two different articles and the clearance of them both gives the article a proper balance . The article also briefly describes the media suspicion and the angle Fugu Alienking seems to adopt. The reference also links together with the buy out of the IP rights of the Gizmondo unit and Ljungmans involvement in the relaunch. Needlepinch (talk) 10:46 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)
So we agree that there is no connection between Ljungman and the bankruptcy except a pre-bankruptcy business deal that was explained to the liquidators' satisfaction. Then which part of the article does in your opinion give rise to the idea that "there was wrongdoing in the transactions between Ljungmans company and Gizmondo Europe"? Wrongdoing by whom? And why isn't that sufficiently balanced by us reporting that the liquidators were satisfied with Ljungman's explanation? Why mention Freer's dealings with the liquidators at all?
Concerning Ljungman's involvement in the relaunch, the source doesn't mention him. How can it then link Ljungman to anything?
I've rewritten the Media Power, Gizmondo and Legal troubles sections of the article in order to make clearer what happened when, and who was or wasn't involved. Now they should be in the correct chronological order, it should be clear who was and who wasn't involved in what kind of wrongdoing (and in what other activities). I also removed the excessive details of that single transaction, whose importance was not explained. It's still mentioned in one of the realtid.se sources. Huon (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The wrongdoing questions raised after the Fugu Alienking contribution and how the transactions between 3P preform and Gizmondo was laid out. The SEC report was the start and the article about Ljungman and Freer ends the story by saying there was no strange or wrongdoing involved. Even if it not spelled out, it could be read so. My confusion regarding this is how we can OK to present a persons wrong doing but not his good doing. It's not sufficient balanced only buy saying there was no wrongdoing by Ljungman when it was a two party transaction and that second party now is involved in new business with Ljungman. A source doesn't have to mention a party directly, its enough if it's a reference to a specific part where both of them was mentioned. :The relaunch is mentioned in the first section of article about Ljungman so I presumed fact there. The article about IP rights links Freer as his business partner and that he or they have the IP rights, without theese rights they couldn't relaunch the Gizmondo unit. :I don't agree in total how the mix of Gizmondo, 3P and Media Power is laid out. Media Power is used for relaunching the Gizmondo and I think Media Power have the same value as the rest of the companies do its connects to present occupation, the relaunch and the partnership with Freer. There also some misassumptions in your text. Needlepinch (talk) 2:44 AM, 2 June 2008 (EST)
Of course we should provide a balanced view. We currently don't report any wrongdoing by Freer (not even accusations of wrongdoing), and we report about Ljungman only what was published by reliable sources.
The IP rights article is indeed about Freer. It does not mention Ljungman as his partner, or that Ljungman also owns a stake in the rights (it even suggests otherwise). The Media Power website mentions Ljungman as one of the founders, but an independent source would be better. For example, the media (except Sandberg) seem to mention only Freer when they report about Media Power (more than 500 Google hits for "Media Power" and "Carl Freer", compared to two for "Media Power" and Ljungman - Wikipedia and Sandberg). The impression I get is that the partnership isn't equal, but we don't have any sources clearly stating that, either. I'll reword that sentence a little more.
I chose the section name because Ljungman's 3P Preform-based legal troubles apparently are unrelated to Gizmondo; for example, they predate the Gizmondo Europe bankruptcy by over a year, and they even predate the launch of the Gizmondo. On the other hand, 3P PreForm is the start of Ljungman's relation to Gizmondo and should be mentioned as such, and when Gizmondo Europe went bankrupt, the liquidators questioned the old business connections, again something we should mention (including the liquidators' satisfaction, of course). We could make a new section for Media Power, but it would be a pretty short section unless we add stuff not related to Ljungman, something we shouldn't do.
Would you mind pointing out my misassumptions? Huon (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've split the 3P PreForm section out from the Gizmondo section, to avoid any hint of confusion about Gizmondo's involvement in the legal issues. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
On second thought rewriting the sentence on the Freer-Ljungman cooperation seems useless without better sources. Huon (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Needlepinch, you are reading too much into my contributions. I found a connection with Gizmondo that predated his current involvement, and thought that if the article warrants a separate section for Gizmondo, then that section should cover the previous involvement. The fact that the reference for the previous involvement was an SEC filing about an insider transaction involving his company seems to have made you defensive, and you are now expanding the article to provide cover stories for third parties to compensate. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems, finally, that we agree on something Fugu Alienking. The 3P preform section should be split from Gizmondo in order to avoid confusion.
I can't se there is a competition between Freer and Ljungman, and you could always ask for more when it comes to different references. There are though a value describing Ljungman giving Media Power a section. He is founder according to the company website and there are buzzing news about the company.
I hope I'm not reading you to black Fugu Alienking. I'm a strong believer in balance.Needlepinch (talk) 6:36 PM, 2 June 2008 (EST)

[edit] Use of Primary Sources

Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources, especially in Biographies of Living Persons. In this case, we have an individual with a history involving crimes of dishonesty (a conviction for tax fraud and bookkeeping errors involving his companies), so primary sources need to be treated with special caution. For this reason, I have removed the Education and Work section, which was based entirely on a self created LinkedIn profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugu Alienking (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, this obviously shows you have a hidden agenda regarding Ljungman. This should also bee a subject under Delete or Keep discussions when that was alive. According to Wiki, its also ok to use non primary source if that source its the only source. Its also, by sources you added, confirmed by other sources that Ljungman ins an expert in the areas you can find in Linkedln. Needlepinch (talk
Also, the section on inventions, the sole source is a patent application. Until that application has been properly reviewed and approved by the USPTO, it is a primary source. It could well be rejected by the USPTO based on prior art, meaning that Ljungman may not in fact be the inventor after all. --Fugu Alienking (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, inventor in its strict meaning could first be proven if the application is not rejected. Needlepinch (talk